#40: Various editorial comments on -06
Comment (by jeff.hodges@…): forked two items to their own tickets... > Section 7.2 > > Does is make sense to mention that status code 308 might be > appropriate in certain circumstances? See draft-reschke-http-status-308. forked to Ticket #43 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/43 > Section 9 > > The phrase "valid Unicode-encoded string-serialized domain name" seems > a bit strange, because we don't typically refer to Unicode as an > encoding scheme. See RFC 6365 regarding such terminology. forked to ticket #44 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/44 -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-websec-strict- jeff.hodges@… | transport-sec@… Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: strict- | Version: transport-sec | Resolution: Severity: In WG Last | Call | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/40#comment:1> websec <http://tools.ietf.org/websec/> _______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
